Unable to invalidate my doctrine by any just argu. ment, you have recourse to a polemical stratagem. which will do your cause no credit. To render the politics I defend odious to your readers, you insinuate, that, upon my principles, the Sovereign" is entitled to just what he pleases, and may take it with or without consent, whenever he thinks proper." This doctrine, which you impute to me, p. 27, has no more connection with my system, than darkness with the rising sun. I abhor it as well as you, Sir; being fully persuaded, that legislative power is to be used for good, and not for evil; for protection, and not for tyranny. If the King and Parliament had laid disproportionable and unreasonable taxes upon our American fellow-subjects, I would no more have taken the pen in defence of such taxation, than I would take it in vindication of robbery.

Nor do my appeals to the propriety of giving the lawyers and physicians whom we employ, the proper fees they demand of us, prove that I hold the doctrine of despotism; for, as I should be a knave if I refused to give a gentleman of the faculty a reasonable fee for his attendance; so should I be a fool if I supposed, that he "is entitled to just what he pleases." I only assert that, as a good man will find a medium between dishonesty and folly, with respect to the fees due to his physician and lawyer; so a candid Colonist will find a middle way between the injustice of the patriots, who refuse moderate taxes to the legislative power that protects them; and between the slavish tameness of the poltroons, who suffer a rapacious tyrant to grind their faces and suck their blood. Nevertheless, I dare affirm, that as we trust, to a certain degree, a lawyer's conscience, an apothecary's discretion, and a physician's candour, with respect to their bills and fees; we may also trust, to a certain degree, the discretion of our governors with respect to their money-bills and taxes. And therefore nothing can be more contrary to good manners, loyalty, reason, and conscience, than to represent the Sovereign who protects the Colonists as a robber

and a tyrant, for laying a moderate tax upon them, in order to discharge the national debt, and the daily expences of government.

You indeed insinuate that the case is not parallel, because we employ our physicians and lawyers "voluntarily." But have not the Colonists "voluntarily" reaped for an hundred years the benefit of protection from the King and Parliament ? And, supposing they can now support themselves without British protection; yet are they not guilty of injustice if they now refuse to pay proportionable taxes? What would you think of my honesty, if the following case were matter of fact? I “voluntarily” employ a lawyer for ten years to recover an estate. When I have gained my ends, he demands fees, which, on account of my poverty, he forbore doing before. I storm on the occasion; I run up and down screaming, Robbery! Tyranny! And at last I turn my back upon him with such a speech as this: "Sir, I can dofwithout you now; and as I am not willing to employ you any more, you have no right to demand fees of me as your due. I am a free man, and you shall not treat me as an abject slave, by insisting on fees with or without my consent." If I put off my industrious lawyer with this American plea, would not your moral feelings brand me as a man devoid of conscience and honour?

I grant, however, that the case betwen the taxes of the Sovereign, and the fees of a lawyer, is not exactly similar: But if the parallel fails, it is in a point which does your cause no service. For although I am perfectly at liberty to dismiss my honest lawyer as soon as I please, when I have paid him his reasonable fees: I cannot cast off the authority of my rightful Sovereign as soon as I please, when I have paid his reasonable taxes; and I prove it by the following reasons:-(1.) I may possibly live fifty years without going to law, but I cannot safely live one day in society without being protected :-(2.) As an unconnected individual, I may neglect the care of my property as I please; and if a man unjustly demands my cloak, I may let him have my coat also: But, as a

all the society with which I am connected: I must de fend my property as a part of the common stock; and o consequence, I must pay taxes, and help to support the Sovereign, who protects and guards the whole society. Hence it is, that those who live in the centre of the king. dom, pay as much towards the fleet, as those that live on the sea-coast; though they are not half so much exposed to the depredations of invaders and pirates.-(3.) The laws of God and of the land bind me to obey my rightful Sovereign rather than another King, in all things which are just and reasonable: But none of these laws bind me to employ one lawyer rather than another, under the fearful penalties due to rebellion and high treason. If the American patriots considered this, would they not blush to insinuate, that we may change our Sovereigns as we do our tradesmen ; and that, as the Colonists no longer demand the protection of Great Britain, the British legislature has no longer any right to demand taxes of them? Who could sufficiently wonder at the insolence and injustice of the following plea, which I suppose to be urged by Yorkshire non-voters?" Neither we, nor our county, are represented in Parliament according to our wishes. We are not afraid of an invasion. Yorkshire is large and populous. We can protect ourselves: And therefore we refuse to pay any thing towards the protection of the British dominions. What we have is absolutely our own: Nor will we be robbed by any body; no, not by the Legislature. For, as we are desirous, that the Sovereign would keep his protection to himself; so we are determined to keep our money to ourselves." I question, Sir, whether, prejudiced as you are in favour of the American patriots, you would not be one of the first to exclaim against such Yorkshire patriots.

66

Nor do you weaken my argument taken from the proper fees due to lawyers, by intimating that such fees are lawful, accustomed fees," and that "in England the Sovereign has no power to recover a debt even for himself, but according to law." Has it not been in all ages, and in all parts of the world, the "custom" of

civilized nations to pay taxes to the protective power they are under? Is it not the "custom" of all just Sovereigns, to lay those taxes according to the wants and emergencies of the government? When such taxes are properly laid by the supreme power which makes and executes every law, are they not "lawful ?” Is it not “according to law," that the King and Parliament laid a little tax upon our American fellow-subjects? And are there no statutes enjoining, that the goods of perverse subjects, who refuse to pay lawful and reasonable taxes, shall be distrained; and that, if such subjects oppose the distraint, they shall be farther proceeded against according to law; especially if, instead of pay. ing taxes, they break into ships, and tyrannically destroy the property of their fellow-subjeets?

If these observations overthrow your reply to the rational arguments, by which I have supported the doctrine of taxation laid down in the Calm Address; I may consider,

SECONDLY, How you answer my SCRIPTURAL arguments, on which, as a Christian, I lay the greatest

stress.

Page 52, You say, "The golden rule of Scripture both for governors and governed, is this: As ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.' Now I presume the good people of England would not be willing that the Americans, in their assemblies, should tax English property here: And why should we therefore desire, in our Parliament, to tax American property there ?"

I reply: The case is not similar. The Americans are protected, and the British Legislature is the protecting power. The protected owe taxes to their protectors, and not the protectors to the protected. You apply "the golden rule of Scripture" to the case in hand, as unfortunately as I should do, if I said, that this rule entitles my servant to command me, because I have a right to command him; and that I may justly

he justly demands a fee of me for his attendance. Nay if your argument be just, it proves that the King i bound to pay you taxes. You may go to his Majesty, and address him thus, according to your patriotic doc. trine: "O King, the golden rule of Scripture, both for governors and governed, obliges thee to do to me, as thou wouldst that I should do to thee. Now, thou wouldst that I should pay thee taxes, and therefore, drop thy British partiality, commence an American patriot, and confess that thou oughtest to pay me taxes.'

If the objection, which you draw from our Lord's 24 golden rule, is trifling; may not that which you raise from his blessed example, be affirmed to be deplorable? Our Reformers say, in their HOMILY against wilful = rebellion, Part ii: "No example ought to be of more force with us Christians, than the example of Christ our Master, who, though he was the Son of God, yet did always behave himself most reverently to such men as were in authority in the world in his time. He behaved not himself rebelliously; but operly did teach the Jews to pay tribute to the Roman Emperor though a foreign and a pagan prince: Yea, Himself with his Apostles paid tribute unto him." How different is your doctrine from that of those loyal champions of Truth! That very example of our Lord's loyalty, which they so highly extol, you indirectly represent as an instance of weakness. How could he, say you, p. 54, “avoid paying the tribute demanded of him?" So it seems that our Lord paid tribute because he could not avoid paying it! He did it through necessity! He broke his own commandments delivered by St. Peter and St. Paul! Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake:-Ye must be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.' Fear of wrath, and human prudence, were the slavish motives of his loyal action! Nay, you intimate, p. 55, that he thought it lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar, only in the same sense in which it is "lawful to give a highwayman our money," and, p. 54, you roundly assert, that such a

1